Comments (13)

I know why John and some of the Westerners are so anti-Chinese, that they have no respect for us.

You know Why?

Our government even treat us crap, how other people will treat us?

Just look at the Chinese, We don't have HR, our government is not democratic, and our leaders like gods that we can't even tell what they are doing wrong or have our own free media...

Of course No body in the world will respect us?

Our government even don't respect us, whoelse would?

If you beat up your wife and child and treat them like slot and basdter, no one in your neighbor would respect them.

Period.

Look at the American people, how their government treat them, look at the whole world, other civilized countries, how they protect their people.

Then you know why John 95% Anti-Chinese.

That's why! That's the reason why 100 years ago, Western could step in and do what they like, because Qing government treat our people like slave, and no other voice aloud, in the end the outside came in, so Chinaman and dogs were not allowed.

If our government treats us with respect, would many people screw with our land for fun?

Do you see any Anti-German webblog? any Anti-English blog? Anti-Span? Anti-French? Even Anti-Japan?...

This article is more balanced and insightful than what seems Mr. Pomfeet's usual anti-China perspective. Pomfret seems at least largely correct in his explanations for why the Communist party has retained political control over China. The combination of rising economic opportunities, a consumer culture widely available, especially in most eastern cities, increased personal freedom, while maintaining strict controls over overt political dissent have offset the apparent perception of most of the Chinese people about the pervasive corruption of many party officials.

Trade and "free markets" have arguably never led to "democracy," as well as respect for human rights in any major country. So those who expected this to follow in China were/are highly naive.

The vast majority of protests in China are economic in origin, of land being stolen, homes being demolished, usually by greedy developers in collusion with corrupt local officials. The central government authorities seem concerned about this widespread local corruption, yet either chose not to try to control it or lack effective control over such local matters. Perhaps partly both.

The fact is most people in China, the United States and most countries care more about their personal lives, financial situation and enjoying consumer culture goods than supposed "democracy" or political freedoms. This is evident in the United States by relatively low voter turnout in most elections for at least forty years, popular cynicism about politicians, the perception most politicians are more or less corrupt, diminished respect by many officials and some in the public to the supposed rule of law, acquiescence in ceding vast powers to the executive branch, with the legislative, judicial branches, along with most in the media largely deferential.

One thing I would like to correct westerner's concept about China's corruption, that it is not caused by current CCP or Communist System, but by Chinese culture.

Sadly and shamefully I must admit that corruption goes with Chinese government from past to now, whether Imperialism, Communist, or Democracy, like Qing Dynasty, Mainland, and Taiwan, that shows any system will not prevent corruption of Chinese system.

To MBBSC, this from "False Dawn: The Delusions of Global Capitalism", by London School of Economics Professor John Gray:

"The perception that countries which subscribe to none of the tenets of `the American creed' are surpassing the United States is too painful to enter into public consciousness. To accept that countries can achieve modernity without revering the folkways of individualism, bowing to the cult of human rights or sharing the Enlightenment superstition of progress towards a world civilisation, is to admit that America's civil religion has been falsified.

For most Americans such a perception is intolerable. Instead, evidence of the superior economic growth, savings rates, educational standards and family stability of other countries that have repudiated the American model will be repressed, denied and resisted indefatigably. To admit this evidence would be to confront the social costs of the American free market. The free market works to weaken social cohesion. Its productivity is prodigious; but so are its human costs. At present the costs of the free market are taboo subjects in American discourse; they are voiced only by a handful of sceptical liberals."

"The country's demographics are terrible; it's the first country in the world projected to grow old before it gets rich."

True but John overlooked important cultural traits of Chinese. They are extremely respect their parents and almost always look after the aging parents and divorce rate is low so the aging partners look after each other, and Chinese saving rate is huge. Unlike West culture, where family relationship are very weak and diluted, saving rate is extremely low. In the West, aging parents are likely die alone with little care from their children and divorce rate is high (US is about 60%). So from the western perspective, China's aging population problem is inflated.

"The country's demographics are terrible; it's the first country in the world projected to grow old before it gets rich."

True but John overlooked important cultural traits of Chinese. They are extremely respect their parents and almost always look after the aging parents and divorce rate is low so the aging partners look after each other, and Chinese saving rate is huge. Unlike West culture, where family relationship are very weak and diluted, saving rate is extremely low. In the West, aging parents are likely die alone with little care from their children and divorce rate is high (US is about 60%). So from the western perspective, China's aging population problem is inflated.

Yes, I do remember what the propaganda was like, at the time. Given those predictions did not materialize, one can understand the unease and the questioning, among pundits... "WHY were we so wrong"?

"In 1989, a chorus of Western voices predicted the (Chinese) party's collapse. "One foot in power and one foot on a banana peel," was how the late, great David Schweisberg of United Press International described the party's predicament. I, too, filed my share of sensationalist dispatches, intimating a coming collapse."

In retrospect, the song is not of a much better quality today, only more burlesque.

"Tiananmen saved the party from collapse"!!! Is that so? Quite a stretch, is it not?

"Of course, China and the Chinese Communist Party face a boatload of trouble."

Which country and government do not? Been to the U.S., lately? Delved into the life of those who lost lifetime savings, job, home, pension and dignity?

"The party has yet to find something to stand for other than self-perpetuation."

Meanwhile, China continues to grow, exerts its influence all over the world like never before in modern times... and now, under constant pressure from China, supported by Russia, Brazil, and a multitude of so-called emerging countries, the International Monetary Fund says it's possible to take the "revolutionary" step of creating a new global reserve currency to replace the dollar..." (www.bloomberg.com)

"It's the first country in the world projected to grow old before it gets rich"?

As one of the Asia Chronicle (www.asiachronicle.com) writers said in reference to the anniversary of the riots and marches, "One can't trust a company that opens up markets abroad while restricting freedom at home."

Tiananmen Square incident is certainly a lessen learned by the Chinese government as if they are not doing their jobs, the people will get angry. Hyperinflation, corruption, as well as the evident collapse of the iron rice bowl will certainly cause problems within China. Most Chinese want to see some kind of reform and some people even want to overthrow the government because they think is probably better than this one. Since the Chinese government started to address these economic and social issues, they have mostly answered to the demands of the people who protested in the first place.

Thank you very much for your insightful opinion piece. I do not see many articles with such a deep understanding on China's history and reality than yours.

China wonderful economical progress of the last 30 year has lifted millions of people out of utter porverty. I would not mind the implied "social contract" between the authoritarian government and the people if I were in their shoes. However conventional wisdom tells us that the interest of government usually does not align with the governed. There were a few "good" emperors throughout China's history but in the end the corruption from absolute power inevitably leads to dynasty collapses. Checks and balances form the foundation for a sustainable form of stable government. I would believe China is no exception and a Chinese government of checks and balances would be good to the people of China and humanity at large in the long run.

I wish to believe that Tiananmen played a tragic and heroic part to help form China's path of recent progress. I also wish the people of China remember Tiananmen, just like they all remember the natioal humiliations they collectively suffered in the hands of imperialists, so that another Tiananmen will never happen again.